# Demystification is difficult sometimes
Vincent Maher says in an online opinion article titled “Web 3.0 is only partly about semantics“:
There is nothing more frustrating than a gaggle of geeks sitting in your boardroom talking about simple concepts in an unnecessarily obfuscatory manner because their revenues are tied to your inability to understand what they’re saying or the bills you’re paying.
One of the prime targets for this confusion is the
Semantic Web. They will tell you it’s about artificial intelligence, acronyms such as RDF, object-oriented data structures and meta this and hypertext that. The bottom line is this: the Semantic Web is about bringing information to life.
I agree with Paul Miller in his comment when he says “Too right“… however! I’m also seeing it from another perspective (to slightly modify the quote above):
There is nothing more frustrating than a mob of managers sitting in the boardroom with you talking about simple concepts in a rather simple manner because their revenues are tied to your ability to understand what you’re saying. The top line is this “Linked Data is about bringing information to life”.
The Linked Data Web is an identical alternate universe, if you can perceive it in this universe then you can perceive it in the Linked Data universe. Imagine: art, science, society, business and academia are all linked to each other in this universe…. therefore we can have the same in that universe.
August 5th, 2008 at 8:54 pm
Daniel,
Hence my comment: Linked Data brings records to life at:
https://itmanagement.earthweb.com/cnews/article.php/3751841/Linked+Data+Leaders:+The+Semantic+Web+Is+Here.htm .
Cognitive Dissonance is a major problem that is deeply rooted in terminology onwnership and the misconception that you own a market by defnining the terminology (typically buzzwords).
Cognitive Dissonace patterns play out repeatedly from XML, Web Services, Web 2.0, and now Web vNext
Linked Data is allowing us to yank out “entities of interest” from the confines of application silos en route to unthethered expansion; I take grab a URI for an entity, and then expand it by making clams/statements in my own data space using terms sourced from powerful data dictionaries.
Interestingly enough, this is a nice UMBEL [1] value prop. explanation. By this I mean: when I yank an Entity reference from some data space on the Web, and then proceed make statements/claims in my own data space, the source of my terms used in my claims has direct impact on the fidelity of the linked data space centered on this entity. Thus, if I am describing a document, and my terms come from UMBEL I then inherit the Tbox (term definitions) that underlie this glue ontology
Thus, I can source terms from FOAF and Bibo rather than one or the other. But if I do source from one or the other, I don’t lose the expansion that either provides 
Links:
1. https://umbel.org
2. https://umbel.zitgist.com